No one here should be expected to spend chunks of their time watching a video, especially when it is impossible to have a discussion with a video. Also, you aren’t in the video, and it is your answer I am asking for.
Why do you say “these individuals are going to great lengths to promote science”? What led you to that conclusion?
I don’t understand that, either; for me, being related to all other animals through descent makes me feel closer to all of living Creation!
And the theology of the first Genesis Creation story fits evolution nicely: as God’s images, we are closely related to that to/for which we image God.
I would venture a comparison: in the changing of water to wine, Jesus did briefly what God does all the time over a much longer span, taking water and through natural means turning it to wine (including human action as natural means); similarly, “develop[ing] from a single cell in 9 months” is doing in a much shorter period what God did over a few billion years.
In relation to what T wrote, your response is little more than word salad – it doesn’t at all address what he said!
I’ve lost track of what individuals are being referenced . . . .
YEC was not prominent is the US until Morris’s “Genesis Flood” came out in 1961.
That’s a good point. If memory serves, mainline creationist Protestants were predominately Old Earth Creationists and were leery of YEC at first because of its association with Seventh Day Adventism, a congregation that some were skeptical of earlier in the 20th century. For the record, it is nice to see wider acceptance of SDA today. Morris essentially took the YEC arguments from SDAs like George McCready Price and presented them to the larger Protestant church absent the ties with SDA.
We might blame the movie and play, “Inherit the Wind” (based on the “Monkey Trial”) for misunderstanding the real history. As I recall, the movie presented the anti-evolutionists as being YEC, when the real William Jennings Bryan accepted an old Earth.
I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that God chose a lowly hominid creature to bear his image in the world. I also think it offended other powers that be.
I also find it helpful to be aware of what modern evangelical theologians accept a reading of Genesis that accords with an evolutionary account. Tremper Longman in Confronting OT Controversies is who brought me over from Old Earth Creationism. It seems that those who are most familiar with Ancient Neareast Literature are those who are open to evolution.
It was never intended to adress what he said…im not responding to stupid unintelligent fluff that sidesteps the inherant problems with dumbass arguments on these forums as is clearly highlighted by atheist books such as mind and cosmos. You.people support theories that even atheism.says are dead horses whilst at the same.rime whinging that YEC are being naive.
If he isnt willing to study these things, who is the naive idiot here?
Hopefully you know where this is in Ellen Whites writings
The good news is, Ellen White also founded the largest protestant education system in the world…what a boon for YEC truth that is eh amigo
The Seventh-day Adventist educational system, part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is overseen by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists located in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is considered as the largest Protestant educational system and second largest Christian educational system in the world. The educational system is a Christian school–based system.[1][2]
In 2023, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has associations with a total of 9,845 educational institutions operating in over 100 countries around the world with over 2,177,933 million students worldwide
Why should anyone care about a philosopher’s opinion on a scientific theory he clearly doesn’t understand?
Are we also going to doubt the science that tells us how babies are made until someone can tell us how embryonic development creates the mind and consciousness?
The other big issue is that there isn’t even a general consensus on what the mind or consciousness is. There is the Monism and Dualism camps, just for a start. Do you think the mind is purely physical? If so, then the explanation is pretty obvious:
If Nagel wants a foot into the discussion, he needs to tell us how evolution is not a well supported scientific explanation for the human genome. Or, he could explain how the mind is not the product of the brain.
If the mind is not the product of the brain, then evolution doesn’t need to explain it.
That is impressive. Compared with 1.69 million in US Catholic schools.
As far as that quote from White, I don’t see how it relates to our discussion. If is is list of "if"s, with no “then”, and a reader might be tempted to respond, in any case with a query “if one doubts the unstated consequence, well, maybe the stated antecedents can be doubted, or maybe the consequence doesn’t follow from the antecedents”.
As far as that quote from
Of.course it does…human nature demands epistomological answers to the questions of origins of life and our future. Its pointless to pretend that basic driving fundamental is not within.
It also makes me wonder why you are here on these forums given you remain atheist? Is Biologos convincing you to become a Christian?
Nagel is an atheist, one from your camp…you should be familiar with the writings of prominent philosophers within your own view there…even Hitlers “mein kemf” was well known amongst the followers of his world view.
You dont bother wqtching youtube videos that dissagree with your view, despite your willingness ro comment with authority on them, you dont read significant philosophical books within your worldview that conflict with the very foundations of that worldview highlighting significant arguments demonstrating serious flaws within it…it makes me wonder if you actually believe what you believe on the weight of evidences or that in fact you are simply indoctrinated!
Why? Why should evolution be called upon to explain immaterial things? That would be like calling on germ theory to explain automobile mechanics. …and then pretending like germ theory is discredited because you couldn’t use it to fix your car.
Evolution isn’t epistemological. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain how nature works through the scientific method. That’s not epistemology.
Is BioLogos convincing you evolution is true?
I’m here primarily because I am a scientist, and the intersection of science and faith has always interested me.
Why? Why should I care what Nagel writes just because he’s an atheist?
Atheism isn’t a worldview. Atheism is just an answer to the question of “Do you believe there is a deity?”. Is not believing in Leprechauns a worldview?
Worldviews vary wildly from one atheist to another. I see absolutely no reason why I should be forced to adopt the worldview of another atheist just because they are an atheist. It’s like telling me I have to believe everything John believes because he doesn’t collect stamps, just like me.
You made claims about what was in the video. I asked you about those claims. If you don’t want to share, then don’t share. However, your reluctance to discuss what is in the video tends to make me think the arguments in the video aren’t that convincing.
If I discuss science I do my best to both reference the source material AND discuss what is in the source material. I don’t expect people to read entire books, watch hours of videos, or understand the ins and outs of a peer reviewed paper. If I put something forth I spend the time to explain it. All I am asking is for others to at least attempt the same.
What? You berate me for not reading the works of atheists, and then accuse me of being indoctrinated? Pick a lane.
That’s because it’s clear that the Hebrew text provides no basis for taking issue with evolution. Some in my Hebrew courses tried to make a case from it, but it just doesn’t hold up. It takes the YEC insistence on ignoring the grammatical-historical method and stuffing science into the text to make a case.
So why did you quote what you call “stupid unintelligent fluff”?
Like what?
And probably can’t. My older brother held that the “soul” actually exists in a parallel continuum and interfaces with the brain, producing the mind, so that without both continua there is no mind – and there’s no way evolution could explain that.
So? Human nature demands a lot of things that science doesn’t need to explain or can’t. Thinking science has to explain everything about human nature makes it into an idol.
Why? Of what use to a scientist would any philosophy be?
Ooh – good catch.
Strong words from somebody who asserts that the lone Ice Age occurred during the Egyptian dynasties…
Considering the ancient Egyptians were notorious for writing everything down. You would think that someone would have noticed an Ice Age.
I wonder when anyone noticed anything in the Bible about an Ice Age.
Of course, we all know better, now. One wonders, though, when someone will notice, for the first time, about lots of other thngs that are in the Bible.
They especially wrote down everything about weather because the priests were responsible for the crops turning out well each year and they could only do that if they understood what conditions were needed for those crops. So if there had been a general drop in temperatures it would have been recorded – along with the measures that Pharaoh and the priesthood took to try to deal with it.
In addition, if there had been an ice age there would have been snow in Thebes and other Egyptian cities every winter, not just the once every fifty years event that fascinated Egyptians ever time it happened. Annual snowfall would have been taken as a sign that there was trouble with the gods, and that would have been written down.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
